UN (Re: further on Stan Goff)

Xenon Zi-Neng Yuan wenhuadageming at comcast.net
Sat Aug 2 05:14:15 MDT 2003

At 07:02 AM 8/2/2003 +0200, Patrick Bond wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Xenon Zi-Neng Yuan"
> > please then, suggest how the anti-war movement should have dealt with the
> > question of the UN.  ignore or dismiss it completely?
>Just by way of comparison, a year ago we were asking this question of the
>UN's eco-development conference here in Johannesburg (the World Summit on
>Sustainable Development). After lots of discussions in the movement, the
>answer was: shut them down. More than 20,000 marched 12 km from the main
>black township near the bourgeois suburb of Sandton. (A pro-WSSD march
>convened by SA president Thabo Mbeki had 1,000 or so, a couple of hours
>I'm nearly done with a book that describes that event plus a dozen other
>futile attempts at global reformism. Here's an extract. The UN is a
>cesspool, and I think those 20,000 did a great service by giving comrades
>around the world a precedent for not only protesting the WB/IMF/WTO/G8
>meetings, but also showing that in its concrete activities -- whether or not
>that included delay of the war (entailing pre-war destruction of more of the
>Iraqi defense, by the way) -- the United Nations is a big big part of the
>problem of global capitalism... (Here's a small excerpt on the content of
>the WSSD; much more about the march and SA government repression...)

hi there.  i don't disagree that as whole the UN has become a cesspool;
indeed it has, as you describe right there and as most of us know about its
record in general.  but would the broader anti-war movement calling for its
dismantlement have been a viable option during the run-up to the invasion,
especially considering that the hawks were effectively pushing to do the
same (in claiming its "irrelevancy" if it didn't act as a rubber stamp)?


More information about the Marxism mailing list